Fightin’ Words

A nation is an economy.  We wanted our own, so we broke away from England and adopted a Constitution that (still) gives our government the power to protect American commercial interests and to discriminate against danged foreigners.  

On July 14, the World Trade Organization twice again ruled against the United States — against your family and mine — in favor of Asian state-owned industry.  Try to find some mention of this in the “American” media.  

Reuters actually printed: 

“Trade diplomats said the two cases, both under scrutiny for nearly two years by the separate panels, reflected a widespread concern in the 160-member WTO over what many see as illegal U.S. protection of its own producers.”

Fightin’ words, and you can see where all this is headed.

We don’t need it.  We don’t need the WTO.  We don’t need a global economy — or anything else that makes a living by deindustrializing and parceling out the United States of America.

We need to be self-sufficient — again.

We have the resources.  We have the reasons.

“WTO rules against US on China state companies”

  • The World Trade Organization has struck a blow to US efforts to challenge the role in global commerce of state-owned companies in emerging economies. . . .
  • In decisions issued on Monday, a panel of WTO judges again ruled against the US in cases brought by China and India that disputed the way Washington imposed “countervailing duties” against alleged illegal subsidies by “public bodies”.
  • The US has tried for years to build a case against Chinese state-owned enterprises, saying these SOEs benefit from both overt and hidden subsidies that unfairly lower their costs of production.  It has argued that those amount to government subsidies to China’s exports, which are banned by the WTO.
  • The US push highlights the difficulties posed by the industrial structure of China and many other developing countries for a global trading system built around the idea of corporations being clearly separated from government.
  • In the Chinese case, three judges reaffirmed a 2011 judgment that set a narrow definition for what could be considered a government entity.  According to this ruling, state-owned companies could not be simply considered “public bodies” because they were majority-owned by governments.  Instead, the panel said, the US had to prove that Chinese state-owned enterprises also performed “government functions” or exercised “government authority”.
  • In a separate case before the trade body on Indian steel, judges cast aside Washington’s argument that supplies from state-owned iron ore and coal mines allowed Indian steel exporters to be treated as public bodies.

In May alone, our goods deficit with India was $2.4 billion.  Our goods deficit with China was $28.8 billion.

Still, danged foreigners are telling us we can’t legally protect our own interests.

We’ve been here before.

And we’ve got the Constitution to show for it.

E-mail: for Fear-Fallen Children: “Dollar to the Giant” Chronicles & Comments June 2008 [#1] to Date [#1096] notably resisting America’s Shift from Wealth Creation to Wealth Transfer and Surrender